View Full Version : Get ready for the ATF'S middle finger.
Mauser KAR98K
05-30-15, 14:55
http://thehill.com/regulation/243520-administration-preps-new-gun-regulations#
Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.
This part was buried at the bottom. No description of what the rules might be.
God I hate F-troop.
Dealers are ALREADY required to report gun thefts and provide trigger locks (safety devices) so those two issues right there are nothing but diversion and distraction. The only things NEW will be regarding high powered pistols.
Probably looking at the M855 ban as a done deal since 75% of the NRA membership thinks "they won" a few months back. Possibly looking at some kind of reclass for AR, AK pistols and the like.
Their regulatory authority really needs go away...
Their regulatory authority really needs go away...
Too late, when they were brought in under the DOJ that was the end of the game.
Dealers are ALREADY required to report gun thefts and provide trigger locks (safety devices) so those two issues right there are nothing but diversion and distraction. The only things NEW will be regarding high powered pistols.
Probably looking at the M855 ban as a done deal since 75% of the NRA membership thinks "they won" a few months back. Possibly looking at some kind of reclass for AR, AK pistols and the like.
Better be a grandfather clause 'cause I ain't turning shit in or changing it. Yeah, it's an open internet forum but I don't give a damn.
Outlander Systems
05-30-15, 20:31
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA23
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1
View EO 12866 Meetings Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML
DOJ/ATF RIN: 1140-AA23 Publication ID: Spring 2015
Title: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms--Amended Definition of "Pistol"
Abstract:
This rule would propose to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term "pistol" and to define more clearly exceptions to the "pistol" definition.
Agency: Department of Justice(DOJ) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 479
Legal Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805
Legal Deadline: None
Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 04/07/2005 70 FR 17624
NPRM Comment Period End 05/09/2005
NPRM 01/00/2016
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Agency Contact:
Brenda R. Friend
Attorney
Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Ave. NE.,
Washington, DC 20226
Phone:202 648-7070
Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol.
...If a firearm previously classified as a pistol is found to be an ‘‘any other weapon’’ pursuant to the proposed definition, manufacturers, current owners, and those persons who wish to purchase such a weapon would be subject to the restrictions and regulations imposed by the NFA, including background checks, registration and making/transfer tax.
If My legal-fu is intact, they are basically stating that if someone were to attempt to convert an existing rifle or shotgun into a pistol configuration, you'd have to SBR it.
Since an AR/AK Pistol / Mossberg "Riot Shotgun" are sold as receiver/other or as pistols, as long as these items were not configured into a rifle and subsequently converted into a pistol configuration, the owner would not need to apply for a stamp, etc.
That being said, it would appear that with the stroke of a pen, they could turn a lot of folks into overnight felons.
Sounds like it's time to call up the Congresscreatures and bitch/moan/threaten their jobs come next election cycle.
This freedom shit is a lot of work. Death by 1000 cuts.
It appears the jist of what they are wanting, RE pistols is as follows:
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having—
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-30-15, 20:42
Middle finger? Sounds like the whole fist.
Is the above quoted text about changing rifle caliber pistols to NFA items? What is a rifle caliber- 22lr?
Maybe we'll get a redefine and explanation of shoulder anatomy.
In the end people will still buy build short uppers....and scuttle them away.
Maybe we'll get a redefine and explanation of shoulder anatomy.
In the end people will still buy build short uppers....and scuttle them away.
I am fortunate enough to have a home range and don't shoot with ATF agents, FBI, or other unsavory (to firearms) elements. I'm not going to lose sleep over it as I currently have nothing illegal and really don't cotton to making me a felon by the wave of a pen, no matter who is wielding it.
Mauser KAR98K
05-30-15, 23:07
I might have to build me a pistol AR afterall.
Yep, time to start writing again. **** these clowns.
Smells like fund raising to me without specifics. Remain calm.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-30-15, 23:52
Smells like fund raising to me without specifics. Remain calm.
The true stupidity won't come until after the 2016 election....
Better be a grandfather clause 'cause I ain't turning shit in or changing it. Yeah, it's an open internet forum but I don't give a damn.
No such grandfather clause when a bunch of imported magazine fed shotguns were deemed "destructive devices." You either registered them with NFA or you had an unregistered NFA weapon and all the fun consequences that come with owning an unregistered NFA weapon.
Maybe we'll get a redefine and explanation of shoulder anatomy.
Awesome, I can finally use my shoulder thing that goes up.
ColtSeavers
05-31-15, 02:48
Maybe we'll get a redefine and explanation of shoulder anatomy. Awesome, I can finally use my shoulder thing that goes up.
On point.
No such grandfather clause when a bunch of imported magazine fed shotguns were deemed "destructive devices." You either registered them with NFA or you had an unregistered NFA weapon and all the fun consequences that come with owning an unregistered NFA weapon.
I'll bet there are several orders of magnitude greater AR pistol owners than ever owned the shotguns you mention. Would certainly muddy the waters a bit for a "wave of the pen" felon creation.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Would this newly dreamed up definition redefine a pistol by basically stating a pistol can only have a pistol grip and no "buffer tube" or anything else that extends from the rear of the receiver?
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having—
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2)A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
jerrysimons
05-31-15, 19:32
I read the federal register link. What is the consternation? It is well known that you can not make a pistol out of a rifle. The firearm receiver must be transferred as "other" without ever having been a "rifle." Disguised firearms seem to be the focus of the reclassification, where did AR pistol come into the discussion? Did I miss something?
PatrioticDisorder
05-31-15, 20:46
Dealers are ALREADY required to report gun thefts and provide trigger locks (safety devices) so those two issues right there are nothing but diversion and distraction. The only things NEW will be regarding high powered pistols.
Probably looking at the M855 ban as a done deal since 75% of the NRA membership thinks "they won" a few months back. Possibly looking at some kind of reclass for AR, AK pistols and the like.
We flood them with comments during the public comment period, run the clock out. I just hope that if we win in 2016, we push full tilt for expansion of gun rights, repeal all the bullshit and push for further expansion. This type of thing I believe will likely blow up in their communist faces.
Moose-Knuckle
05-31-15, 23:33
Obama Administration Proposes Sweeping Gun Regulations
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-proposes-sweeping-gun-regulations-1945483
Outlander Systems
06-01-15, 06:29
Correct me if I'm wrong. Would this newly dreamed up definition redefine a pistol by basically stating a pistol can only have a pistol grip and no "buffer tube" or anything else that extends from the rear of the receiver?
Regarding the "short fixed stock", that is the parlance for a pistol's grip.
Grip=Stock in ATF nomenclature regarding handguns.
Annoying that the definition vaguely defines the pistol grip but does not address at what point a feature at the rear of the gun will no long allow the firearm to fit their definition of "pistol." The question must be asked- If they can redefine what weapons are then what is stoppong them from redefining weapons into the "generally illegal" category?
No doubt, these people are legislating. The legislative and executive have become one.
Regarding the "short fixed stock", that is the parlance for a pistol's grip.
Grip=Stock in ATF nomenclature regarding handguns.
You don't grip a fvcking stock...
I hate them.
Mr.Anderson
06-01-15, 09:40
You don't grip a fvcking stock...
I hate them.
I cant help but agree with ya.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-01-15, 10:15
Is there a link to anything that lays out the specifics?
With their stupidity, they'll say that weapon lights on handguns make it a stock... or whatever.
The thing flips up.
Outlander Systems
06-01-15, 10:25
https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-pistol
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
I think what the proposed rules are intended to do is limit covert pistols designed to appear as something else.
As opposed to overt pistols? How about discrete pistols? What those with low observable signatures? Camouflage? If their on the down low?
Doc Safari
06-01-15, 11:31
This is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Wait until they dream up a bunch of other crap.
How long has this jerk got left in office?
Exactly my point. These regulatory bodies realize they can interpret and reinterpret their own regulations infinitely. What vague and ill-defined terms they have...the better to eat us with.
As opposed to overt pistols? How about discrete pistols? What those with low observable signatures? Camouflage? If their on the down low?
Mr.Anderson
06-01-15, 13:09
This is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Wait until they dream up a bunch of other crap.
How long has this jerk got left in office?
It doesn't matter.
The next jerk that gets in will do the same kind of things. A little ground may be given here & there like scraps from a masters table to the dogs.
But from the way I see it, the road the leadership is on is all about fascism, world surveillance, elitism, formulation of a selective middle class, perversion, people farming.
The minds that control the left also control the right. And maybe even those in the middle.
I dont understand how anyone thats not a criminal or have the same ideas can supper and smile with those that are.
Too many tards running around with AK/AR pistols that have drawn way too much attention to this issue
The sig brace was the tipping point.
I predicted this would lead into a ban of rifle caliber pistols and now here we are.
Doc Safari
06-01-15, 16:35
Too many tards running around with AK/AR pistols that have drawn way too much attention to this issue
The sig brace was the tipping point.
I predicted this would lead into a ban of rifle caliber pistols and now here we are.
First: I think we have enough damn regulations and ATF should leave us the F**k alone.
But I have to agree: the first couple of times I saw salesmen at the LGS selling the SIG brace as "rule beater" and a "way to have a stock on your AR pistol", all I could think was "not good. Not good."
I can just imagine this going on all over the country right in front of undercover ATF types.
Can someone point me to the crime reports that show these "rule beaters" being used in the commission of crimes?
I just don't understand the concept of hating on law abiding citizens who comply with the letter of the law, rather than pointing out that we now have proof the law was stupid, politically motivated and wholly ineffective as a means to reduce or prevent crime. :rolleyes:
Doc Safari
06-01-15, 17:00
Can someone point me to the crime reports that show these "rule beaters" being used in the commission of crimes?
I just don't understand the concept of hating on law abiding citizens who comply with the letter of the law, rather than pointing out that we now have proof the law was stupid, politically motivated and wholly ineffective as a means to reduce or prevent crime. :rolleyes:
I agree, but we don't live in that country anymore. Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges granted by government.
Too many tards running around with AK/AR pistols that have drawn way too much attention to this issue
The sig brace was the tipping point.
I predicted this would lead into a ban of rifle caliber pistols and now here we are.
Let's just ban pistols with detachable magazines too while were at it, because officer safety. Wheel guns only.
Doc Safari
06-01-15, 17:18
Let's just ban pistols with detachable magazines too while were at it, because officer safety. Wheel guns only.
Much as I might disagree with the entire concept of pistols not being allowed shoulder stocks, that's the law and the SIG brace was clearly a way to circumvent it. I never saw anyone at the range use a SIG brace as anything other than a shoulder stock.
I don't like the law. I'd love to change it. But that's the way it is and anyone with even a cursory understanding of "the way things are" would know that it was on borrowed time.
Much as I might disagree with the entire concept of pistols not being allowed shoulder stocks, that's the law and the SIG brace was clearly a way to circumvent it. I never saw anyone at the range use a SIG brace as anything other than a shoulder stock.
I don't like the law. I'd love to change it. But that's the way it is and anyone with even a cursory understanding of "the way things are" would know that it was on borrowed time.
The letter of the law, according to their interpretation, was also that shouldering said brace did not constitute a redesign and therefore reclassification of the pistol into a SBR. Then they back peddled and changed their interpretation of the law. The ATF is the only to blame for any of this.
Doc Safari
06-01-15, 17:41
The letter of the law, according to their interpretation, was also that shouldering said brace did not constitute a redesign and therefore reclassification of the pistol into a SBR. Then they back peddled and changed their interpretation of the law. The ATF is the only to blame for any of this.
Right. And we can do exactly zero zilch nada about it.
I'm actually surprised the outcry over M855 got them to back down. Everyone knows they will go ahead and ban it eventually.
Averageman
06-01-15, 18:30
I would like to see a Politician go after the BATFE the way Rand Paul has gone after the NSA.
The idea that we can legislate through a government agency and not through the Legislative Branch of our government is the tipping point, not someone making an AR or AK pistol.
I can understand how people can look at something like the SIG Brace and say "Oh that's not a good idea.", but in reality the response should be "Why not put a real stock on the gun?"
The frog in the ever warming water probably was pretty damned comfortable at one point and wondered how he had lucked in to his hot tub.
Perhaps their new "rule" will entail officially forbidding the shouldering of an AR pistol? The buffer tube is necessary for the function of the weapon in this case so otherwise it would involve completely banning AR pistols. Given the sheer number of AR pistols out there it would be kind of awkward to instantly create tens of thousands of instant felons. Not that I wouldn't put it past those cocksuckers but the numbers would necessitate a more careful approach.
Outlander Systems
06-01-15, 19:13
Perhaps their new "rule" will entail officially forbidding the shouldering of an AR pistol? The buffer tube is necessary for the function of the weapon in this case so otherwise it would involve completely banning AR pistols. Given the sheer number of AR pistols out there it would be kind of awkward to instantly create tens of thousands of instant felons. Not that I wouldn't put it past those cocksuckers but the numbers would necessitate a more careful approach.
I have yet to see anywhere in the intent of proposal to include anything regarding AR pistols.
All I can gather is they will interpret this section categorizing the AR pistol as a rifle due to the "stock" that extends parallel to and extending in in the same line as the bore.
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
All I can gather is they will interpret this section categorizing the AR pistol as a rifle due to the "stock" that extends parallel to and extending in in the same line as the bore.
So basically then every pistol AR or otherwise will become a rifle since they all meet the same definition. Hilarious.
Sh*t......show.
I would think they would go after pistols that the magazine does not load into the pistol grip, but in front.
No rifle caliber semi auto pistol would survive.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-02-15, 17:16
I would think they would go after pistols that the magazine does not load into the pistol grip, but in front.
No rifle caliber semi auto pistol would survive.
Also that would catch the Olympic style 22lr pistols too? Didn't that happen in CA already?
I would think they would go after pistols that the magazine does not load into the pistol grip, but in front.
No rifle caliber semi auto pistol would survive.
This is the correct answer.
They are trying to ban imported pistols that accept a magazines outside of the grip.
This is what we are losing:
MKE MP5s
MKE HK33K
POF MP5s
SIG 553
B&T APC
CZ Evo 3
Zastava M92 and M95
All so some retards could run around with junk aftermarket AR/AK pistols with sig braces.
The letter of the law, according to their interpretation, was also that shouldering said brace did not constitute a redesign and therefore reclassification of the pistol into a SBR. Then they back peddled and changed their interpretation of the law. The ATF is the only to blame for any of this.
So will you be challenging this in court then with your money?
This is the correct answer.
They are trying to ban imported pistols that accept a magazines outside of the grip.
This is what we are losing:
MKE MP5s
MKE HK33K
POF MP5s
SIG 553
B&T APC
CZ Evo 3
Zastava M92 and M95
All so some retards could run around with junk aftermarket AR/AK pistols with sig braces.
Are you shedding your well-established gun-snobbery? I mean seriously, why would someone with such caviar tastes have an interest in those foreign-made pistols for? Is you gun-snobbery selective?
So will you be challenging this in court then with your money?
No your right. Let's stop delaying the inevitable and just turn all our guns in. That's the end game anyways.
Averageman
06-02-15, 21:01
No your right. Let's stop delaying the inevitable and just turn all our guns in. That's the end game anyways.
What people don't understand yet is just how far down the rabbit hole this thing has gotten. It's not that long ago that things were much different.
We need someone on a National level to stand up and speak out. The irony to me is that more people are buying guns and getting CCL's but fewer people understand how things like the 68 GCA have taken legislative power away from the legislature and given it to some unnamed person at the helm of the BATFE.
If they suddenly started legislating and regulating other parts of the Constitution folks might understand, but as long as they gut the 2nd first, who can and will fight back?
Too many tards running around with AK/AR pistols that have drawn way too much attention to this issue
The sig brace was the tipping point.
I predicted this would lead into a ban of rifle caliber pistols and now here we are.
Your shaming of Americans exercising a fundamental right exposes you for the elitist you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Are you shedding your well-established gun-snobbery? I mean seriously, why would someone with such caviar tastes have an interest in those foreign-made pistols for? Is you gun-snobbery selective?
I don't think you've priced a lot of those foreign made pistols. Most of them cost more than a Colt rifle.
[QUOTE=Averageman;2132352] It's not that long ago that things were much different.QUOTE]
You are right, it wasn't too long ago that you couldn't do the e-form thing and it took a lot longer for the whole process. It wasn't too long ago that we didn't have the Heller and McDonald decisions. It wasn't too long ago that concealed carry was a rarity - in 1986 there was one Constitutional Carry state, Vermont, there were only 8 Shall Issue states and there were 16 no-issue states; fast forward to today, 6 Constitutional Carry states, 36 Shall Issue states and no, nada, none, zero, zip, states which are no-issue.
Could things be better? Yes. Are things worse, my opinion is no.
I read through all the links provided and did not find anything which indicated that the proposed change is aimed at the AR pistols - they do state that if it was a rifle or shotgun and is converted to a pistol it is an NFA item:
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having—
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol.
(So, if it starts as a pistol it is a pistol)
I also found this:
Proposed omissions should not be read as an intention to regulate a narrower category of ‘‘any other weapons’’ than those previously classified by ATF under the NFA and implementing regulations.
Here is the instant felon stuff:
If adopted as a final rule, the proposed amendment to the definition of ‘‘pistol’’ will be applied to previous and future classifications of firearms disguised to look like an item other than a firearm. If a firearm previously classified as a pistol is found to be an ‘‘any other weapon’’ pursuant to the proposed definition, manufacturers, current owners, and those persons who wish to purchase such a weapon would be subject to the restrictions and regulations imposed by the NFA, including background checks, registration and making/transfer tax.
I also fail to see the attack on AR-pistols - in fact, I think I'll go shoot mine this weekend.
Your shaming of Americans exercising a fundamental right exposes you for the elitist you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I very much doubt that will happen. :rolleyes:
Are you shedding your well-established gun-snobbery? I mean seriously, why would someone with such caviar tastes have an interest in those foreign-made pistols for? Is you gun-snobbery selective?
Those pistols are used to buld factory SBRs. That is the whole point of them which you didn't get.
A Sig 553 converted back to an SBR is a $5k to $6k project.
You are not up to speed on this topic.
Averageman
06-05-15, 14:22
[QUOTE=Averageman;2132352] It's not that long ago that things were much different.QUOTE]
You are right, it wasn't too long ago that you couldn't do the e-form thing and it took a lot longer for the whole process. It wasn't too long ago that we didn't have the Heller and McDonald decisions. It wasn't too long ago that concealed carry was a rarity - in 1986 there was one Constitutional Carry state, Vermont, there were only 8 Shall Issue states and there were 16 no-issue states; fast forward to today, 6 Constitutional Carry states, 36 Shall Issue states and no, nada, none, zero, zip, states which are no-issue.
Could things be better? Yes. Are things worse, my opinion is no.
Yes they are, really they are. We have won many fights and have made great progress. The issue I have is that as soon as these guys were allowed to make the rules without going through the Legislative Branch, you bet we lost.
Those pistols are used to buld factory SBRs. That is the whole point of them which you didn't get.
A Sig 553 converted back to an SBR is a $5k to $6k project.
You are not up to speed on this topic.
Oh I knew what you were getting at. Just that if you poo-poo an AR pistol then salivate over another rifle-caliber pistol it just seems a tad hypocritical, that's all. Either pistols are "cool" and acceptable or they aren't. You really can't have it both ways.
ETA: not everyone who owns an AR pistol puts photos of themselves on Facebook or videos on YouTube doing borderline provocative things. Let's not paint with a broad brush.
PatrioticDisorder
06-05-15, 14:57
So BATFE wants to classify AR/AK pistols and the like under NFA? So if they were allowed to do this it would make building foreign SBRs much more difficult which is why they are doing this am I correct in understanding them?... If I am correct wouldn't this completely undermine any attempts to ban "AP" rifle ammo (think M855) because rifle caliber pistols would be illegal? This seems to be a net loss for the gun grabbers as they would pigeon hole themselves on their quest to ban ammo, what am I missing?
Oh I knew what you were getting at. Just that if you poo-poo an AR pistol then salivate over another rifle-caliber pistol it just seems a tad hypocritical, that's all. Either pistols are "cool" and acceptable or they aren't. You really can't have it both ways.
ETA: not everyone who owns an AR pistol puts photos of themselves on Facebook or videos on YouTube doing borderline provocative things. Let's not paint with a broad brush.
You state that as if you're not well versed on his views of the subject. He can and will make those distinctions and he usually does paint with a broad brush. That's his MO. :rolleyes:
So BATFE wants to classify AR/AK pistols and the like under NFA? So if they were allowed to do this it would make building foreign SBRs much more difficult which is why they are doing this am I correct in understanding them?... If I am correct wouldn't this completely undermine any attempts to ban "AP" rifle ammo (think M855) because rifle caliber pistols would be illegal? This seems to be a net loss for the gun grabbers as they would pigeon hole themselves on their quest to ban ammo, what am I missing?
I think the big picture is that they want to do these bans and controls without the legislative branch involved. Don't think small about a pigeon hole. That teeny hole is just a crack in the big sink hole of beurocrats deciding what is and what ain't legal by whim and political cronyism. Didn't we just have some sort of ruling that certain procedural changes don't have to even be made public and opened for comment / discussion?? Expansion of beurocracy or rarely a good event for the masses. They tend to back fire eventually simply cause people a re people and in general assholes.
[QUOTE=26 Inf;2132401]
Yes they are, really they are. We have won many fights and have made great progress. The issue I have is that as soon as these guys were allowed to make the rules without going through the Legislative Branch, you bet we lost.
Understood sir.
You state that as if you're not well versed on his views of the subject. He can and will make those distinctions and he usually does paint with a broad brush. That's his MO. :rolleyes:
Yeah I know, I'm trying to remain within the CoC. As long as he is civil in his replies it's all good. Didn't read what he wrote before he edited it but the finished product was rather tame for him. That said, I haven't been locked in a while, so......;)
So BATFE wants to classify AR/AK pistols and the like under NFA? So if they were allowed to do this it would make building foreign SBRs much more difficult which is why they are doing this am I correct in understanding them?... If I am correct wouldn't this completely undermine any attempts to ban "AP" rifle ammo (think M855) because rifle caliber pistols would be illegal? This seems to be a net loss for the gun grabbers as they would pigeon hole themselves on their quest to ban ammo, what am I missing?
Exactly.
This is to put an end to importing foreign assault rifles as pistols to circumvent the 1989 import ban
Oh I knew what you were getting at. Just that if you poo-poo an AR pistol then salivate over another rifle-caliber pistol it just seems a tad hypocritical, that's all. Either pistols are "cool" and acceptable or they aren't. You really can't have it both ways.
ETA: not everyone who owns an AR pistol puts photos of themselves on Facebook or videos on YouTube doing borderline provocative things. Let's not paint with a broad brush.
The proliferation of aftermarket AK/AR pistols and the sig brace gave the ATF the excuse it need to impliment a ban.
OEM imports were flying under the radar.
The proliferation of aftermarket AK/AR pistols and the sig brace gave the ATF the excuse it need to impliment a ban.
OEM imports were flying under the radar.
While I don't disagree that ATF will look for an excuse to do stupid shit, why would they focus on the imports and not the domestic AR/AK pistols? i.e. the whole ball of wax? Of course it remains to be seen whether they go for the end-zone or not, but right now you think it's just imports?
As an aside, you could make the case that an AK pistol does not need a receiver extension to function, but obviously an AR does require a buffer tube as part of it's action.
You don't grip a fvcking stock...
I hate them.
I haven't been able to read all the posts. Did anyone think that the ATF rules might ban front rails or forearms? Because that would be worse than banning the RE.
EDIT: OK, I've read all the posts, but I don't see the how the wording bans foreign rifle caliber pistols. If it makes them NFA items, I'll have to ditch mine quickly. I was keeping them to turn into cheap but reliable SBRs when I move to a free state.
Could someone expand? Thanks.
Outlander Systems
06-06-15, 14:16
I haven't been able to read all the posts. Did anyone think that the ATF rules might ban front rails or forearms? Because that would be worse than banning the RE.
EDIT: OK, I've read all the posts, but I don't see the how the wording bans foreign rifle caliber pistols. If it makes them NFA items, I'll have to ditch mine quickly. I was keeping them to turn into cheap but reliable SBRs when I move to a free state.
Could someone expand? Thanks.
Scott, based on the proposed regs, they want to regulate pistols disguised at toothpaste tubes, belt buckles, etc.
Scott, based on the proposed regs, they want to regulate pistols disguised at toothpaste tubes, belt buckles, etc.
Ahaha, I'd like to see someone shoulder a tooth paste tube.
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I just didn't see where some of the previous comments were coming from. I'll continue to monitor. There is some slander against the M92 and Draco platforms here, but I've found them to be highly reliable and accurate. I also intend to SBR one of my SCARs and an AR as well.
Seems the ATF isn't the only one ready to shove their digits in our rears. Seems we are getting a clarification on ITAR as well.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech
Seems the ATF isn't the only one ready to shove their digits in our rears. Seems we are getting a clarification on ITAR as well.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech
So let me get this straight. The government which facilitated the acquisition of approximately $26M worth of U.S. weapons by the terrorist organization ISIS, now wants to ban us from talking about defense related items online? :rolleyes:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...w-ISIS-s-Hands
Seems the ATF isn't the only one ready to shove their digits in our rears. Seems we are getting a clarification on ITAR as well.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech
You've got to be f*****g kidding me.
I bet if we changed the site to m4koran we'd get a commendation.
While I don't disagree that ATF will look for an excuse to do stupid shit, why would they focus on the imports and not the domestic AR/AK pistols? i.e. the whole ball of wax? Of course it remains to be seen whether they go for the end-zone or not, but right now you think it's just imports?
As an aside, you could make the case that an AK pistol does not need a receiver extension to function, but obviously an AR does require a buffer tube as part of it's action.
Because making these things an NFA weapon blocks them from import due to the 1968 gun control act.
This is the final regulation they can impliment to make imports totally illegal without any work arounds.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.